MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3080718241 · doi:10.15621/ijphy/2020/v7i4/744

EFFECTIVENESS OF THE LACEY ASSESSMENT OF PRETERM INFANTS TO PREDICT NEUROMOTOR OUTCOMES FOR PREMATURE BABIES AT TWELVE MONTHS CORRECTED AGE

2020· article· en· W3080718241 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Thanooja Naushad, N. Meena, Tushar Kulkarni

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Physiotherapy · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeonatal and fetal brain pathology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCerebral palsyPediatricsProspective cohort studyGestationGestational agePredictive valueCohortPregnancyInternal medicinePhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The Lacey Assessment of Preterm Infants (LAPI) is used in clinical practice to identify premature babies at risk of neuromotor impairments, especially cerebral palsy. There is a shortage of studies on the Lacey assessment despite its wide clinical use. This study attempted to find the diagnostic accuracy of the Lacey assessment of preterm infants to predict neuromotor outcomes of premature babies at 12 months corrected age and to compare their predictive ability with brain ultrasound.Methods: This prospective cohort study included 89 preterm infants (45 females & 44 males) born below 35 weeks gestation. An initial assessment was done using the Lacey Assessment of Preterm Infants (LAPI) after babies reached 33 weeks postmenstrual age. Follow up assessment on neuromotor outcomes was done at 12 months (±1 week) corrected age using two standardized outcome measures, i.e., Infant Neurological International Battery and Alberta Infant Motor Scale. Brain ultrasound data were collected retrospectively. Data were statistically analyzed, and the diagnostic accuracy of the Lacey Assessment of Preterm Infants (LAPI) alone and in combination with brain ultrasound was calculated.Results: Fisher's exact test showed p<.01, indicating that there is an association between the Lacey Assessment of Preterm Infants (LAPI) and the neuromotor outcomes at one year corrected age. A combination of Lacey Assessment (LAPI) and brain ultrasound results showed higher sensitivity in predicting abnormal neuromotor outcomes than Lacey Assessment alone (80% vs. 66.7%, respectively). Lacey Assessment also showed high specificity (96.3%) and negative predictive value (97.5%).Conclusion: Results of this study suggest that the Lacey Assessment of Preterm Infants (LAPI) can be used as a supplementary assessment tool for premature babies to identify those at risk of abnormal neuromotor outcomes. These findings have applications to identify premature babies eligible for early intervention services.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.322 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of PhysiotherapySame topicNeonatal and fetal brain pathologyFrench-language works237,207